Love it: Skeptics winning in the classrooms

The LA Times laments the loss of the totalitarian educational view — pity the poor students subjected to hearing both sides of the story:

Texas and Louisiana have introduced education standards that require educators to teach climate change denial as a valid scientific position. South Dakota and Utah passed resolutions denying climate change. Tennessee and Oklahoma also have introduced legislation to give climate change skeptics a place in the classroom.

In May, a school board in Los Alamitos, Calif., passed a measure, later rescinded, identifying climate science as a controversial topic that required special instructional oversight.

The news itself is interesting, but sadly viewed through the usual green-colored glasses.

Is it “reporting” or a propaganda piece? Let’s check the three boxes:

Box 1: One half of the story is reduced to Orwellian nonsense. Tick yes! — who, exactly, teaches children to deny we have a climate? Johnny, there are no clouds… Which state passes resolutions declaring that the climate does not change? Henceforth California will be 78…

Box Three: Find spurious tenuous associations of one view of climate change to a/ Tobacco-propaganda, b/ creationism or c/ Big-oil-profits. Tick b and c. Yessity yes. (How did they manage to leave out the tobacco slur?)

Despite the propaganda, the news is good news. The people are not fooled.

“Any time we have a meeting of 100 teachers, if you ask whether they’re running into pushback on teaching climate change, 50 will raise their hands,” said Frank Niepold, climate education coordinator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, who meets with hundreds of teachers annually. “We ask questions about how sizable it is, and they tell us it is [sizable] and pretty persistent, from many places: your administration, parents, students, even your own family.”

You’ve gotta love it.

But look out for the “New national science standards for grades K-12 (which) are due in December.” Since they are based on standards from the National Academy of Sorcery, we know logic, reason and evidence will need all the help they can get.

236 comments to Love it: Skeptics winning in the classrooms

I live in Canada and they are STILL showing that rediculous Nobel winning propaganda move “An Inconvenient truth” in schools. I can’t wait for something like whats happening in Texas and Louisianna to happen here.

However I’ve noticed many children are not buying it anymore. I think they have had enough of the constant fear mongering about future catastrphe. It has backfired, I think there is a whole generation of kids who will not fill the ranks of the green movement in the future.

Except that a British court said it was not accurate enough to show in schools …
Except that it has no actual science in it that follows any logical causality …
Except that it was created/promoted by a person who believes that the temperature of the centre of the Earth is “a few million degrees” …

It is bubble-gum science and I think that chewing bubble-gum would do less damage …

Even your warmists masters have distanced themselves from the village idiot of global warming.

Al “the center of the Earth is millions of degrees” Gore couldn’t find his ass with both hands let alone grasp the most elementary concepts of the science. No wonder he thinks the Earth has a fever! He actually believes the planet is as hot or hotter than the sun!

Al has invested in, and profited from, oil and gas, through his VC firm despite his concerns over greenhouse gas emissions. He has purchased beach front property even though he says that seas will rise by twenty feet and his mansion is one of the worst energy guzzlers in the state! He absolves himself by buying carbon credits… from himself!

The guy may have gotten a slightly below average grade in his only science class in college but at least the guy knows how to sell snake oil! He has already made hundreds of millions off the CAGW scam! The only global warming is the hot air coming out of every orifice on his bloated body.

John, how can you be such a gullible Neanderthal? Just to be fair and to provide you with another opportunity to embarrass yourself, perhaps you can tell us which scientific claims he makes in his crockumentary are valid?

You may want to clean your shoes off before you open your mouth! Then again, the taste of cow pen flavored boots may actually freshen your breath up! You seem to have no problem swallowing bullshit and I am confident that you, being the committed and true believer that you are, forgo brushing your teeth in order to minimize your carbon footprint!

The term Skeptic is used is used to differentiate “real” science from AGW type political/enviro/pseudoscience.

I would really prefer another description such as “Mainstream Scientist” which does not invoke the idea that there is some type of Global Warming science to be skeptical of in the first place.

The only reason that Climate Change “Science” got so far was that Mainstream Scientists refused to think that anyone would openly and brazenly lie, cheat and deceive and so assumed that the normal scrutiny and scientific protocols were being followed.

The current back lash from Scientists that is now occurring is a measure of how angry real science is with the proprietors of CO2 based AGW. It is a non event.

No thanks, John! I am too busy having fun and entertaining clients at my beach house in Corpus Christi, Texas. It is beautiful here. It does take a few days, though, to get used to the time change. It is two hours different than California.

John, I am too busy loving and living the good life made possible by my choice years ago to start my own oil company.

You never had the Huevos to do anything with yourself which is why you are a loser. You are incapable of an independent thought and all you want to do is fit in with the rest of the pack. Too bad for you, boy, because if you are not the lead dog the view never changes!

So go and crawl back under that rock you slithered out from under until you receive new orders from your CAGW masters!

Temp, I never said that climate science is BS. You have employed a straw man. You imply that I am corrupt because I own an oil company. It took me twenty three years to get to where I am.

The day you contribute half of what I have to society I will gain a measure of respect for you.

Send Jo an itemized list of all the money you have given to help others along with the receipts and I will reciprocate. If the total amount you have given to charity is greater than what I have given or if the percentage of your income given to charity is greater than what I have given of my income to charity, I will pay for you to take an all expense paid vacation to Corpus Christi, Texas or any vacation destination in the United States you wish. Care to take the “pepsi challenge”, mate?

I started my own company because I have ambition and because I wanted to do something with my life. Nobody gave me a handout. I saw an opportunity and started part time as a broker while working two other jobs. I have had my ups and downs but I have always found a way to overcome all the obstacles in my way. The harder I work the luckier I get!

Fu@& the 99%! My goal is to be the 1%! As the old adage goes, “If you shoot for the stars and don’t make it you are still on top of the world!” The reason I mentioned 23 years is to emphasize the fact that I earned my way in life.

Fools like you talk about big oil while ignoring big green. At least I provide an indispensable product! What have you ever done besides hide behind a screen name and bitch and moan anonymously?! You and every green turd on the planet uses over 100 fossil fuel based products everyday. The day you are not using hydrocarbons is the day they bury you and, with a little luck, you too will become oil and gas someday and finally do something for others!

Normally, I don’t give advice because the wise don’t need it and fools won’t heed it! If you are so unhappy with your lot in life take the “T” out of can’t, develop a little ambition and succeed! The only thing standing between you and your dreams is…you!

Don’t covet your neighbor’s goods and quit being jealous of others. A winner accepts responsibility and a loser blames others. Try being a winner for a change and quit whining like a little girl!

Steady Eddy, you’ll do yourself a mischief.
Big deal mate, you got lucky so what, lots of people get lucky because there’s lots of people, simple probability.
By the way, sounds like you been doing too much Anthony Robbins. Release the giant within Eddy!

Temp you are correct. I did get a little lucky. In fact, the harder I work the luckier I get! I am a winner because I accept responsibility. You are a loser because you blame others. Man up and got a pair!

We have one major advantage: reality is not our enemy. Oh it can be tough with us at times but it is not an enemy. Our goal is to learn the rules and play it straight. Sometimes we win. Other times we break even. Sometimes we get hurt.

They have one major weakness: their enemy is reality. They try to fake everything. They believe they can mark the deck, deal from the bottom, play cards that are up their sleeves, and change the rules on the fly. It turns out that they can’t even play a simple game of “go fish” successfully. All they get are unintended consequences.

Do you approve of the new windmills in Tasmania – Musselroe National Park?
Have a look at TonyfromOz opinion 1st before you brain comment.

Vesta just released this:

Vestas Wind System, the world’s biggest maker of wind turbines in terms of revenue, said that it is to layoff 2,335 people worldwide and warned that an additional 1,600 jobs in the US could be at risk if Congress doesn’t extend tax breaks for renewable energy

.

The renewables are becoming a great investment for fools!

OH NO! They WANT MORE tax breaks – after EU has run out of $ – they’re after the US and guess what Temp? They already have Australia!

You’re so smart today Temp! Are you sure you’re not KR, MB or JB – no, that is a joke!

No jonnyboy, open mindedness allows the mind to progress, within a week of studying this topic, I can formulate this:

It is not the climatic nature of matter that defines its energy, it is the electromagnetism of its molecules. Radiation causes conduction between electrons in the sub atomic particles of molecules.

To explain temperature, it is first necessary to understand the mechanism that creates it. That is, the effect on matter of the a Sun’s energy wave radiations.

The function of energy within matter emits radiation waves, in equilibrium with that received. Both infinitesimally small and those that we can see, matter conserves that which is needed to build molecules.

Energy cannot be stored beyond the equilibrium state of electromagnetism. Energy is emitted in pulses due to the lapse rate of dissipation of excessive introduced energy. Excessive energy is emitted by electrons not chemicals, they are emitted in waves.

Energy converted to conduction is prerequisite to convection and it is the thermodynamics of chemicals that reconverts Energy to radiation at the collapse of its atomic particles, rendering a end to the phenomenon in our atmosphere.

There are two facts of heat

1. It is energy relative to mass.
2. It has unlimited radiation in space.

But, gravitational energy controls mass and its convection (energy). Convection is not a cause of heat, but the thermodynamics of its distribution.

Therefore, the thermodynamics of GHG’s do not create energy, and the energy conservation cannot exceed the gravitational force of its matter.

Whearas, you jonnyboy, are flat out putting two syllables together. You wouldn’t happen to be a Australian teacher, would you?

Does anybody on this blog:
– deny that the “Little Ice Age” is just getting over,
– deny that the Vikings farmed Greenland,
– deny that, by burning food in your car, you are killing millions of defenseless folk in 3rd world countries,
– deny that bird slicers kill protected species,
– deny that solar cell manufacturing pollutes big time,
– deny that Svensmark’s theory, as shown at CERN, clearly explains there is major solar radiation variance,
– deny that trillions of public till dollars are going to evangelical zeal of those Grandpa Baby Boomers,
– deny the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the 20 century “little solar maximum”,
– deny that US/NATO actions on Libya (and Syra?) will force Iran and N. Korea to develop/use nukes to prevent the same thing happing to them (…and we’ll be the collateral damage)

Naaah,
you guys ain’t some of them “deniers” folk.
Besides, if you were, you’d be too busy getting your goberment grants to waste time here!

A former Iranian diplomat who defected to the West this year said Tuesday he saw North Korean technicians repeatedly travel to Iran, which Western officials fear is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Mohammad Reza Heydari, who resigned in January from his post as Iranian consul in Norway, said he’s “certain” the cooperation is continuing between his home country and North Korea. The comments at a Paris think tank conference come amid rising international concerns that North Korea, which has already staged atomic tests, is cooperating with Iran on its nuclear program…

A U.S. intelligence assessment — published among the flood of classified U.S. State Department memos obtained by WikiLeaks — concluded that Iran received advanced North Korean missiles capable of targeting Western European capitals and giving Iran’s arsenal a significantly longer reach than previously disclosed.

Teach kids how to read and write, then, pure science of; maths, physics and chemistry – then when they go on to tertiary education. Then, let them make up their own minds.

Teaching children [@ grade school] esoteric guff like the non science of MMCO2 = runaway GW. In turn which is based on a set of linear experimentations from the C19th + an awful lot of computer modelled idiocy and politicised fictional scare stories grim, is just – an AGW fairy tale.

Agitprop, is a tool of the mindbending loony-tune cultural Marxists – left wingers in the adult world have always been liars and financial wastrels but how did we allow them to dictate in the classroom?
Mind you, even though they’ve been lied to for many years, most kids have smelled an AGW rat anyway – children ain’t stupid, furthermore, it is a stupid man/woman who assumes so [but typically Socialists do].

The environment, is a concern for us all, we must ensure that the classroom environment for our children is only concerned with erudition and not devoted to the inculcation of superstition and insidious ideology – it’s time to teach kids to, eat all the greens.

Mark, two out of three are beyond teens. I offered that as free advice to younger parents.

But let me give you an example of how I “conditioned” them: Years ago when the oldest had just begun “teens” I had a sit down discussion with all of them. I said very firmly that there would be no tattoos or piercings in the house and that anyone whom challenged my position (rule) better be prepared to live elsewhere. The fact that from a very young age I was a man of my word, they knew that I was not kidding. To date none have any tattoos or piercings.

Modern “parents” shudder at such “stifling of their little psyches” and some would even call it “abuse”. I think of it as “doing my job”. Fortunately my wife agrees. Our children are smart, happy, get/got good grades, and hold jobs where their supervisors appreciate their abilities. They are well “conditioned” to deal with life.

It’s wrong that laws must to be past to force schools to teach specific scientific points of view in schools and it’s not going to fix an education system which is broken.

If they developed a science curriculum based on the methodology of science as the ONLY measure of proper conduct in any kind rational inquiry, then you could turn the kids loose on phrenology and the kids would be fine.

The teaching of science subjects should be conducted exclusively through the window of scientific experimental method.

Every established theory should be presented as a history of an inquiry — a natural problem observed, the assumptions formed and experiments performed testing those assumptions that led to the formation of a hypothesis and then the series of tests that later confirmed or falsified the hypothesis. Whenever possible the students should be allowed to recreate these experiments in the classroom or lab and encouraged to challenge every statement and identify unspoken assumptions.

No theory should ever be dictated rote to students as a fact of nature, theory must always be contextualised within the living process of the scientific method.

Every school should offer a “principles of science” course…it could be great fun too. Have the students become scientists themselves by developing their own hypotheses concerning what they’re curious about and devise their own hypotheses and conduct their own experiments. Then submit their results and data to the class who then must check the results.

From an early age kids must be taught how to think, not what to think.

As a science teacher myself Wes, I totally agree with everything that you have said here. My experience has been that well meaning but clueless primary teachers tend to indoctrinate their students with “facts” about environmental issues and that younger students take whatever their teacher says as gospel. There are few “facts” that should be taught in junior science classes, such as the order of the planets or that plants photosynthesize. Schools are constantly being bombarded with propaganda on climate change with very few gatekeepers like myself in a position to challenge the statis quo.

When I was at school, I had a kid in my class who was very good at Science. The teacher asked the class what the major constituents of air were, and this kid stuck his hand up and said Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Carbon Dioxide. It was the only time I ever heard him make a mistake, and the teacher pounced on it and said, “There is no Hydrogen in the atmosphere, can anybody correct Geoffrey?”. To which another kid said “Nitrogen”.

Geoffrey was crestfallen at being wrong.

The following week, we were given a demonstration of the electrolysis of water by the teacher, who explained that the larger amount of gas produced was Hydrogen, and the lesser amount was Oxygen, and that they were in the ratio of two to one, etc. At the end of the demonstration, the teacher opened the taps at the top of the tubes and released the gasses. Geoffrey immediately said, “Well there is Hydrogen in the atmosphere now”.

We all laughed, even the teacher, and I never forgot Geoffrey’s inquiring mind, and his willingness to challenge authority.

Can’t disagree with you Wes. Science education, particularly early on, should have lots of observation and experiment. I don’t think there is much point to trying to convert this into rules or laws. Just lots of exploration leaving stuff open ended to be followed up later.

jonnyboy resides in kkleton, year 3220. He works as a trash data funnel in a mind factory, he is open minded as well as open ended. The superior beings, known of Intellects, have endured him to a lifetime of misery for his blasphemy of science. Daily he is fed only the failings of their scientific pondering. His takes this trash through his open head and mulls it until extricating it out his open end, into oblivion. He knows everything and anything but the truth………

Hang on, that’s not in the future, that’s what’s happening to jonnyboy now.

The introduction of Doublespeak by a desperate AGW lobby has backfired bigtime and left them “hoist on their own petard”.

The hypothesis of manmade CO2 induced AGW which was then escalated into runaway catastrophic AGW was no longer triggering the required frightened reaction due to an obvious and unpredicted disconnect between rising CO2 and flat or falling temperatures, so it became climate disruption and then climate change.

This led to the birth of the inane question “Do you believe in climate change”? Pardon? Do I believe in something that is a fact of life, has been so since Time began, will be till Time ends and therefore requires no “belief”?

Your asking of such a nonsensical question says more about you than me and brands you as an idiot. Try “denying” that!

Unfortunately, we may have lost some of a generation of “brainwashed” kids but the tide is turning. However, I do feel deeply sorry for the children of rabid AGW “believers” some of whom post here.

Here in the US we’ve seen much the same tactics used to push ‘creationism’ in the classrooms – attempts to legislate either against teaching evolution or teaching both evolution and creationism.

Fortunately, those attempts fail on a regular basis, as per the Kitzmuller v. Dover case (which, incidentally, also brought about the introduction of the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” as an equally compelling competitor to “Intelligent Design”).

—

Now, if a consistent, compelling case for an alternative to current climate theory was available, one that has scientific merit, I for one would have no objection to it being considered in the classroom, weighted by the amount of evidence supporting that competing theory. That is, an alternative that was (a) physically sound, (b) consistent with the data, and (c) explains within some limits of certainty and measurement the full set of observations.

Unfortunately, I’ve yet to see anything of the sort. Arguments against current climate theory include contradictory “It’s not happening”/”It’s happening but it’s not us”, “It’s the sun” or “It’s happened before”/”Climate sensitivity is low”, etc.

Schools should teach the scientific method – absolutely. They should also teach the items best established by that scientific method, the current view of the world. Or do folks think we should teach just the scientific method, then send every youth out to recapitulate for themselves the development of the theories of evolution, gravity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, and so on? That would be quite the waste – we need to provide a foundation to build upon, not repeat basics over and over:

“If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” – Issac Newton

Children should be taught the most accurate view of the world possible, including what the uncertainties are. Attempts to legislate otherwise are greatly disturbing – limiting knowledge in a rather Orwellian fashion to support a particular point of view. If there is a better theory out there, it’s going to have to compete the way science has always competed – by the accumulation of evidence, increased understanding of physical relationships, and having a theory strong enough to stand up to critical view.

KR,
Your selection for:
“..Arguments against current climate theory include..”
fail to note that the current theory fails to explain
1. the Minoan Warm Period 1450–1300 BC
2. Roman Warm Period 250–0 BC
3. the cold periods between them and the Medieval Warm Period.

The only “outcome” of the current climate conjectures is that we (the developed nations) are “guilty sinners” and our CO2 caused the Pacific Decadal Oscillation to warm up the entire globe.

So, if the “correlation” is soooo good, how did it cause the other warm periods in Holocene and the intermingled cold periods?
(and saying “we can’t explain it otherwise” is simply waving the flag from the top of Mt. Stupid [ref: Forbes])

On the other hand, why let reality interfere with their good “rice bowl”?

LOL – Actually, those various warm periods are certainly understandable within current climate theory, based upon volcanic activity (or lack thereof, as in the period before the late Minoan), insolation (Maunder Minimum, for example), and the fact that many “warm periods” folks argue about were regional, not global as we see today.

Note that there are uncertainties in reconstructing temperature, including those various warm and cold periods and their extent. I find it fascinating that folks argue against various reconstructions show current temperatures being higher than historic temps, by using in many cases the very reconstructions they decry. Or anecdotal evidence (small passages from various works), which quite frankly isn’t terribly convincing.

Temperature changes are the result of multiple forcing changes – solar, volcanic, and (based upon >150 years of quite well established spectroscopy) anthropogenic. Current temperatures don’t make sense without the anthropogenic component (Meehl et al 2004).

As I said before:

If there is a better theory out there, it’s going to have to compete the way science has always competed – by the accumulation of evidence, increased understanding of physical relationships, and having a theory strong enough to stand up to critical view.

Any candidates, LOL? I haven’t seen any. In the meantime, limiting education, excluding the best knowledge we currently have via legislation – that’s the Orwellian approach. I’m horrified that this thread would push such a thing.

limiting education, excluding the best knowledge we currently have via legislation

Which I can take to mean “limiting education, but we will exclude from that limitation the best knowledge we currently have by legislation”

In other words we have that “best knowledge” due to legislation. Now if as I suspect you meant this:

“limiting education by using legislation to prohibit presenting the best knowledge we currently have”

that would have made more sense. Though I would be more inclined to agree with the assessment that we have that “knowledge” due to legislation, political maneuvering, and other questionable tactics. Not because it is “the best knowledge we currently have.”

On the other hand,
with Svensmark’s theory being supported by CERN that falsifies that the
”sun is a bit player” conjecture,
we better make sure that folk don’t hear about it or they might get ornery about “skyrocketing electricity prices”.

I would suggest you peruse threads such as here and here (both on JoNova) to see why that’s nonsense.

Unfortunately the use of words such as “hot body” and “heat” confuse the issue.
It is absolutely true that my hot cup of coffee in a warm room will cool slower than if it was in the fridge.
There is a scientific law that governs this with a formula known as Newtons Law of Cooling. That’s what we use (for instance) to determine how long ago a corpse has died.

HOWEVER

The above law needs conduction and convection to be valid.
And since we are talking about radiation (call it remote heating), your two links are irrelevant.

It is also confusing when we refer to radiation as “photons” as if they are tiny marbles whizzing around being swallowed and spat out by atoms and molecules.
Radiation is a WAVE~~~~~~~~and as such it doesn’t behave like a marble travelling in straight lines.

Let me put it this way:- It is true that you accept the notion that O2 and N2 are TRANSPARENT to infrared radiation.
It is also true that you accept the notion that CO2 interracts with CERTAIN WAVELENGTHS ONLY such as 15microns.

Is it therefore such a huge leap in logic to consider the possibility that a molecule in a state of high excitement (high frequency) will not be “seen” by radiation from another molecule in a state of low excitement (low frequency) [just like N2 is not "seen" by infrared waves].

Otherwise how does one explain the true fact that my radio can distinguish between one wavelength and another. If it didn’t, my favourite station would be a gaggle of noise interfered by other frequency waves.

With all due respect, Jo appears to be incorrect. Jo takes the position shared by Dr. Roy Spencer here. Problem is that it is proven incorrect by Latour in subsequent conversations here. Cooler objects CANNOT make warmer objects warmer still. Jo is wrong.

I guess like you I was troubled by the post on the backyard radiation experiment by Roy W Spencer.

His measurements showed a lot of enthusiasm and insight but thermodynamics is a very tricky animal to try and work with and interpret when so many factors are at work.

It is my understanding the all that happens is that the exit of LW radiation from the atmosphere is delayed by GH gases and clouds. This has the effect of reducing the temperature gradient from Earth (IR emitter) to clouds and creating a warmer mass of air between the two.

There is no way that the Earth surface can be brought to a higher temperature in this situation.

Try a magnifying glass with sunlight. Some might quote that as an exception. Wrongly.

The second law does not postulate that a warm body cannot make a cold body warmer. It stipulates(most often for a closed system) that the temperature of the warmed body cannot exceed the temperature of the body warmed by the transfer process.

The magnifying glass example does produce a localised heating, even fire, but it does so at the expense of less heating adjacent to it.

KR:
Now, if a consistent, compelling case for an alternative to current climate theory was available, one that has scientific merit, I for one would have no objection to it being considered in the classroom, weighted by the amount of evidence supporting that competing theory. That is, an alternative that was (a) physically sound, (b) consistent with the data, and (c) explains within some limits of certainty and measurement the full set of observations.

Unlike the models from the AGW crowd, it succeeds in “predicting” the last 1/2 of the 20th century from the first half, the first half from the last half, and matches the climate for as far back as we have records.

If we weighted each theory (Scafetta’s and AGW) with the amount of evidence supporting each (models with no demonstrated predictive skill don’t count as evidence — except for the religiously committed, and that’s what we’re trying to get away from, right?), then you would spend about 1 day on AGW, demonstrating it is a failed theory and the next two weeks on the measured cyclical nature of climate.

BobC – Scafetta’s hypothesis (cycles upon cycles, which appear to vary with every successive paper)fails to actually match temperature, is in part based on detrended data (Fröhlich & Lean 1998), ignores relevant and contradictory cosmic ray (GCR) data – it simply doesn’t hold up. He would have to invoke multiple changes in sensitivity and forcing lag times at various periods to come even close.

His cycles fail to hindcast previous temperatures, or match current temperatures, and hence his predictions of future temperatures are not well supported.

SkepticalScience (SS) tries to claim that Hansen’s scenario ‘B’ (stabilization of CO2 emissions since 2000) is the correct one because:

1) He used “too high” a sensitivity. (I have to agree with this)
2) Actual CO2 growth was slower than Hansen predicted, with scenario ‘A’ (Business as Usual), so we should give him a Mulligan and go with scenario ‘B’ (stabilization of anthropogenic emissions — which hasn’t happened).

There are two failed predictions here:

A) IPCC still hasn’t ruled out Hansen’s sensitivity, so they haven’t absorbed any lesson here (as we would expect if this were ‘science’, not advocacy). Hansen himself is still maintaining that ‘paleodata’ supports sensitivity of up to 6 deg C, (a conclusion that apparently can’t be falsified by mere evidence) so he also hasn’t changed anything based on SS’s claimed lesson.

B) Hansen (and the IPCC) implicitly assume that, since CO2 increase is entirely driven by anthropogenic sources, that it must increase with those sources. Hence, Hansen assumes that CO2 increase accelerates with the “Business as Usual” (BAU) scenario ‘A’. Anthropogenic emissions closely followed the BAU scenario, but CO2 concentrations followed scenario ‘B’, which assumed that anthropogenic emissions growth was stopped. This is not, as you and SS assume, evidence that Hansen was right — it is evidence that Hansen’s assumptions are wrong, and that anthropogenic sources are not the main driver of CO2 increase.

Tallbloke has both the original UTC paper here and the first of a two part expanded explanation of it here.

This theory shows what can be done with existing observations regarding the so-called GHG effect on several planets of the solar system.

But they don’t call if the GHG effect; they call it the “Near-surface Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (ATE)” effect. So far they are making a lot of sense to this engineer, but they need to polish up their description of how this factor ‘works’.

“They should also teach the items best established by that scientific method, the current view of the world.”

1. Children should be taught to think critically and logically, not brainwashed. 2. If we followed your advice children would be taught that the world is flat and that vitamin C prevents colds. 3. Your statement is non sequitur.

“Now, if a consistent, compelling case for an alternative to current climate theory was available, one that has scientific merit, I for one would have no objection to it being considered in the classroom, weighted by the amount of evidence supporting that competing theory”

Argumentum ad ignorantiam, an appeal to ignorance. You assume that if there is no other competing theory that the CAGW hypothesis is correct. Your theory has been falsified. If The effects of CO2 are montonic then where is Trenberth’s missing heat, hiding between Al Gore’s ears? Hansen said in 1988 that under his business as usual scenario, and CO2 emissions have exceeded it, temperatures were supposed to rise above the noise in the 1990′s but they didn’t. In fact, the satellite data, which Hansen can’t fraudulently adjust, shows no warming! Where is the warming?

They came up with a hypothesis, made predictions which failed to come to fruition and still push their religion? You are pathetic and pitiful. You are living proof that there is a sucker born every minute and there is somebody there to take them.

Regulars who post on this site should treat trolls such as you in the same way that the Japanese Bee treats the Giant Hornet. Before the hornet can leave the hive to report the location the bees smother the hornet and create so much heat that the hornet dies!

You are a disingenuous troll who has no life and has nothing better to do but waste other’s valuable time.

If you were sincere you wouldn’t post such inane tripe! Get a life, dude!

““If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” – Issac Newton

Nice quote from the greatest scientist of this and every previous age but quite inappropriate when thinking about the shoulders of the intellectual and scientific pygmies who constitute the alarmist wing of climate science. There is not one decent mind amongst the whole bunch. They also are collectively guilty of sloppy and manipulative methodology.

What this cabal of midgets has to offer our scientifically inclined young people is an hypothesis that is asking to be invalidated by the theory of valid science and principled and ethical practice.

I agree on your comments about “Climate Scientists”. The overwhelming impression is of third rate science, and it is only their “eye catching” claims of coming catastrophe that gets attention.

There are the university “educated”, who believe that the fall of capitalism is imminent, and that then “superior minds” (themselves) will be left in charge of the world, so claims of coming catastrophe attract them like moths to a bright light. Hence the beat-ups about mad cow disease, Y2K, bird flu, DDT, asbestos etc.

Sometimes, as in the last, there is some evidence at the bottom (how many of the 37 forms of asbestos are harmful?) but the scare is built up so that just touching asbestos cement sheet will make your hair turn green and your knees drop off. Others have very little real basis at all.

Folks have mentioned a number of papers with varying points of view – Excellent!!! That’s how science should work, with hypotheses and theories competing on how well they match the world we live in.

But science by legislation? I’m appalled see a site like this, one firmly opposed to government control, promoting legislation of facts. That’s exactly like legislating the teaching of creationism over evolution in the schools – an attempt to overturn facts with opinions, rather than _letting theories stand on their own strength_.

KR, Surely you don’t fear shining the “light of truth” on your AGW theory Law do you? If it is so strong, it should have no problem standing up against the “lies” and thereby these young minds will grow up to understand the “perfect” nature of the Peer process. Maybe a class on “Obediently Following Authority”………

A long time ago I read a quote from a poster on here which is very true. School is not about what to think but HOW to think. School is not about taking a side of an argument on what you learn but just teaching foundations to be put into practise in the real world. Unfortunately once you get into university level you and do an environmental science course or a science course that relates to Global Warming the lecturer is going to teach the side he thinks is right therefore that is how he is doing his job.

don’t know if anyone has posted this one here, but it’s more proof sceptics aren’t winning in academia or the MSM. from doing a search, it would seem matthew sadler is with AAP, tho this article and other MSM that carried this rubbish, don’t say so. how absurdly PRECISE are their figures? do they believe this gives their modelling more credibility?

17 Jan: Courier Mail Brisbane: Matthew Sadler: Global warming to cut short lives
A GLOBAL temperature rise of 2C by 2050 would result in increased loss of life, a new Queensland study has found.
Scientists from the Queensland University of Technology and the CSIRO examined the “years of life lost” due to climate change, focusing on Brisbane.
“A two-degree increase in temperature in Brisbane between now and 2050 would result in an extra 381 years of life lost per year in Brisbane,” lead researcher Associate Professor Adrian Barnett, from the university’s Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, said…
“A four-degree increase in temperature would result in an extra 3242 years of life lost per year in Brisbane.”
Interestingly, the study found that a one-degree increase would result in a decrease in the number of lives lost.
This is believed to be because the increase in heat-related years of life lost are offset by the decrease in cold-related years of life lost.
The researchers said cold-related deaths were significant, even in a city with Brisbane’s warm climate.
And many deaths could be avoided if people had better insulation in their houses…
The study has been published in the journal Nature Climate Change**.http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/global-warming-to-cut-short-lives/story-e6freoof-1226245930928

in this EPA-sponsored talk in Dublin, Heffernan sounded Irish, said she was glad to be back in Dublin, and mentioned she previously working in Fisheries Research. found this helpful info, because there is little info online about her prior to her joining Nature Climate Change:

MarBEF, a network of excellence funded by the European Union and consisting of 94 European marine institutes, is a platform to integrate and disseminate knowledge and expertise on marine biodiversity, with links to researchers, industry, stakeholders and the general public.http://www.marbef.org/

“I know that this will not sit well with ardent environmentalists”, Mr. Woods, a geographer at the University of Kansas said, ”but what else can one say”?

Instead of being pristine forests, barely inhabited by people, parts of the Amazon may have been home for centuries to large populations numbering well into the thousands and living in dozens of towns connected by road networks…

As a result of long stretches of such human habitation, South America’s colossal forests may have been a lot smaller at times, with big areas resembling relatively empty savannas.

Such revelations do not fit comfortably into today’s politically charged debate over razing parts of the forests, with some environmentalists opposed to allowing any large-scale agriculture…

…these people purposefully modified their environment in long-lasting ways.

This is the history of humankind that needs to be taught, not the ‘settled junk science’ of the UN-IPCC.

OT in a way but may soon affect some who post here (amongst many others). Chiefio (E.M.Smith) has recently posted an article: “Web Outage Coming”.

Apparently some well-known sites (including Wikipedia)are considering shutting down for a day in protest against what US Congress is being pressed to do in response to copyright concerns. I wonder if the pressure on Congress signals the first shot in a wider campaign to limit blog freedom?

I would be extremely disappointed if the large corporations (Murdoch etc) get their way on this. To have seen the internet rise from nothing, only to have it end up fully censored and controlled, for the financial gain of corporations and the political ends of governments would be so sad.

Is there anything we can do to stop this? I would say, directly, no. The trends of power and influence throughout history have always deifed indiviual action. However, continued discussion and debate which has as its underlying philosophy freedom of expression and communication will do much to create and maintain a countertrend to reactionary forces on both the right and left.

The internet is a monster and good luck to any fool trying to put a leash on it.
History tells us that the gramaphone was to be the death of music, because performers would no longer be paid for their work. That free radio would be the death of records. That motion pictures would kill theatre. That TV would kill cinemas. That the internet will kill them all.
If history is anything to go by, the ones who cannot adapt will be left behind, and it looks to me like Murdoch and most of the print media have missed the boat.

To “stop this” we have to stop merely being consumers of the internut and go back to being innovative and creative. Just like we were when it was first created and back in the days of FIDOnet, etc.

The fact that governments and big business are increasingly able to control how the internut is used only goes to show how broken, vulnerable, and flawed it has become.

What is needed is an “internut2″ … one that is taken beyond the control of governments, legislation, laws, and the need for big business to provide access to it.

Yes, an internut that doesn’t need ISPs even.

A start off point for a virtually freebie city-wide network would be to design and make popular cheap short-hop low-power wireless devices to constantly repeat/forward a new kind of encrypted packet system. (heck, most of us carry one or more wireless communications device already and vividwireless is already half-way there with it ). Stick ‘em on car roofs with a solar panel, on ya home TV mast, on ya kid’s bike, on the back of stop signs, seed the city with them, whatever it takes.

Obviously not so useful once out of highly populated areas but as I said, it would be a start and as I also said, it would introduce innovation and creativity that surely would snowball to Fix. The. Problem. (the problem being an internut that has been hijacked by government and big business and a relience upon ISPs)

Until we’re prepared to be more than just consumers of a product whose design and operation has become dictated to us by government and big business, we’re going to remain both enslaved and dependent to the broken down and fatally flawed thing the internut has become.

Standard “innovate or perish”, eh ?

Stopping a government from implimenting A New Law today ain’t going to prevent the need of fighting the same battle all over again tomorrow. Creating something that makes any law regarding it pointless (and nothing short of an EMP or skynet (heh) being able to shut it down) will.

John: The hypothetical danger from “large corporations” censoring the Internet pales compared to the actual censorship even now being practiced by various governments around the world. The Internet is one of the largests threats to tyranny and thought control in modern times.

There are many in the AGW “science” community who would love to be able to censor Joanne’s blog, for instance. Some have gone further and supported legal action or even execution.

Governments would like to support censorship for commercial interests mostly to set a precedent that they should censor “for the public good”. Once set, you can bet that the precedent would be used for political reasons eventually.

Interesting that you use a news group, “Murdoch”, as your example. News organizations (Murdoch’s included) are the most vocal opponents of censorship. It is commercial intellectual property interests that are behind the current push (plus government’s intrinsic desire for more power, of course).

Interesting that you use a news group, “Murdoch”, as your example. News organizations (Murdoch’s included) are the most vocal opponents of censorship. It is commercial intellectual property interests that are behind the current push (plus government’s intrinsic desire for more power, of course).

Bob, you weren’t supposed to notice that. Murdoch is their favorite whipping boy, so a little diversion from the truth seems perfectly OK from their point of view.

Roy Hogue
January 20, 2012 at 4:18 am · Reply
Murdoch is their favorite whipping boy, so a little diversion from the truth seems perfectly OK from their point of view.

In my experience (here in the “People’s Republic of Boulder”) you are absolutely right, Roy. It really frosts Progressives’ buns that Fox News Channel (Murdoch’s) has more viewership than all the other cable news channels put together.

Their response is:
1) To call those who watch FNC ‘stupid’.
2) Fantasize about censoring it.

I heard Real Climate and SkepticalScience are also going to protest SOPA. For 24 hours they are going to stop publishing the real raw unadulterated facts of climate change.

Yeah I’m note sure how anyone will notice the difference either.

In some ways we already live in the post-SOPA world. These days you can’t even mention The Ordovician Era, The Late Eocene, Wilhelm Kreutz, Habibullo Abdussamatov, or YAD06 without our Internet censor going crazy.

Remember the whole net neutrality issue from a couple of years ago? Remember the whole push was by media organisations trying to claim ownership of the internet?
Remember the subscription based internet packages they wanted to introduce? Much like pay-tv?
Like this link: http://imageshack.us/f/25/neutrality.png/

This SOPA issue is a further continuation of that. Its media organisations trying to take over the internet.

The essential problem in the logic of warmists is that they begin their argument with a flawed premise. “Climate change ” is an undefinable term. It can mean whatever anybody wants it to mean. This is not science which, as a strictly logical process, requires the premises of any argument to be strictly defined, allowing testable and falsifiable hypotheses to be put. Scientists, ,like all of us, are prone to confirmation bias, hence the development over the centuries of rigourous scientific protocols, including free access to the data and methodolgy by which any claim is made. That this practice has been repeatedly abused by influential climate scientists illustrates the rot at the core of current climate science. Anyone who thinks that scientists are inherenlty more truthful or less prone to venality than the rest of us needs to read some Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper.

“Climate Change” is a tautology because by definition the climate is always changing.

“Stop Climate Change Now,” a Greenpeace slogan, is an oxymoron since by definition climate change can not be stopped.

The idea that an “ideal climate stasis” existed and can be restored by government intervention is the basic assumption of “Climate Change” theo-politics, thus Warmism can be fairly characterised as “climate creationism” because the premise is that man has the God-like power to create the climate in his own image.

CSIRO launched a CarbonKids schools pilot program in August 2009 – and a Climate Change kit (retail price $31.50) – designed for “ages 10 and up”. Students from 26 schools (ACT, WA, NSW)) were involved in activities for “tackling climate change”, reducing carbon footprints and “instilling behavioural changes in their families, friends and the broader community.” Three quarters (2,826) were from primary schools.

A 124-page evaluation report was released early last year. CarbonKids, it concluded, was a “pedagogically relevant” program that “successfully enhances teaching and learning that contributes to the core business of schools in achieving quality student outcomes.”

But how did teachers make sure the kids “valued evidence”, were able “to draw evidence-based conclusions and make informed decisions in discussing strategies for addressing carbon reduction and climate change” (outcome 4), when they had to promote the CSIRO’s alarmist narrative?

Down at the Burgmann Anglican School, they looked at the Life Cycle of a Burger. This was, according to the report, a way of “understanding the use of energy in production and consumption and its implications for climate science.”

“What have the CarbonKids in your school achieved that they are most proud of?” Teacher comments: The students love the vegetable gardens, recycling and worm farm. The kids have established a CarbonCops group and an Environmental Team that monitor our use of power and make sure we are being “green”.

“Savas” is a Forrest Primary School Year 4 student. He (apparently) knows “what it means to be a CarbonKid” and understands “how carbon is related to energy and the implications of energy use for climate change.”

His Dear Visitor letter is included on page 44. It has a neat border design motif of black human footprints. He is, he writes, “a carbon kid, witch (sic) means I try to reduce my carbon footprint.” He is eco-smart; does not leave water running while cleaning his teeth, plants trees, buys energy efficient appliances, and so on.

Despite all the misinformation he received on the new AGW religion, his last sentence bravely refers to carbon dioxide: “If we had no carbon dioxide, we wouldn’t exist!” Do we have a free-thinker here?

All, then, is not lost – at least not yet. Perhaps some of the nation’s young minds will survive this Orwellian eco-exercise?

“Carbon kids” – little more than the rebirth of Hitlerjugend under another name with a different ‘vision’. In any healthy society, wouldn’t this surely be sounding alarm bells amongst sane, free thinking intelligent folk?

I quote: “German youth could join the Hitler Youth beginning at the age of 10. The organization was divided into two categories, one for members ages 10-14 and the other for members 14-18.” “Hitler was a firm believer in the need to indoctrinate Nazi ideology early and the power of young people in ensuring the continued vitality of the “Thousand Year Reich.” (www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/hitleryouth.html). Later on, as desperation and indoctrination became more fanatic, membership became for all intents and purposes compulsory.

It may not be too long before the Carbon Cops (aka. kids), are reporting their families to the Carbon Authorities! This level of state sponsored interference in education is not only a sad demonstration of how teachers seem to have irrevocably lost ownership of their profession, it is a particularly sick drive by the Ministry-of-We-Know-Best and their Green totalitarian policies, striving to own the hearts and minds of our young.

What was once a four wheeled Green wagon is now a tottering unicycle….delusional and still chanting: ‘and I’m still rollin’ along’. Nevertheless, someone must put a stop to child indoctrinating eco-theology, designed to undermine families whilst emphasizing the Green anti-carbon ‘family’. Creationism all over again, but this time coupled to the Dark Side! Damn, there’s that ‘good movie’ cropping up again.

My trick to avoid Godwin’s Law is to invoke comparisons with Stalinist Russia or Mao’s China. They had youth brigades too and killed about the same number of people as the Nazis. Plus, they were quite literally the socialist heroes of many of the old “comrades” at the ABC (Phillip Adams, for examle) and Fairfax too.

This level of state sponsored interference in education is not only a sad demonstration of how teachers seem to have irrevocably lost ownership of their profession, it is a particularly sick drive by the Ministry-of-We-Know-Best and their Green totalitarian policies, striving to own the hearts and minds of our young.

Where I am not so sure about that is in the phrase “teachers seem to have irrevocably lost ownership of their profession” because we first need to establish their willingness or reticence to go along with that interference.

Many years ago I had an English Professor that would proudly inform anyone who chose to ask that he was in fact a Marxist. He believed the state should legislate our morality for us and felt there was no conflict in his “guiding” students in the direction dictated by his choice of what that morality should be.

In cases such as that, which unfortunately seem to be more common than most would think, I would say he considered that interference both welcome and desirable and therefore a part of his profession so in his view he hadn’t lost ownership of it.

Here in the US the “separation of church and state” was used to remove references to God, prayer, etc. from the classrooms. If I remember correctly I don’t believe our young students even say the Pledge of Allegiance anymore, something those of my generation did every morning before our first class began. I do know that the reference to God was removed from it long ago.

However, there apparently is no problem with references to Gaea (and other neo-pagan forms of nature worship) being introduced into the classroom under the guise of environmentalism. It would seem that particular “religion” is okay. I quote the word because the one side will argue it isn’t a religion and exempt from legislation involving religion in the classroom, while others (such as myself) will say for all practical purposes it is no different and should fall under the same restrictions.

I don’t see this so much as they “lost ownership of their profession” as that they came into it with the idea of turning it into what it has become.

17 Jan: ReadTheHook: Mann act: ‘Hockey stick’ scientist returns to UVA
by Hawes Spencer
“It’s not wrong to be wrong,” says Michael Mann, author of the famous “hockey stick graph,” the controversial image of a recent spike in global temperatures…
“While I’ve borne costs, I’ve also borne opportunities,” Mann said. “The best way I can get back at my detractors is being the most effective spokesperson I can be.”
During the Q&A period, Mann asserted that deniers of climate change have received “far too much prominence” in media reports and that nations such as the U.S. and Australia– perhaps due to their history of “contrarianism” and “the rugged individualist mindset”– have rejected limits on emissions eagerly accepted by European nations.
In keeping with willingness to be wrong, Mann told the crowd in UVA’s Clark Hall to remain open to new information.
“We should all be skeptics,” he said. “I’d like to think I’m a skeptic.”http://www.readthehook.com/102682/mann-act-hockey-stick-scientist-returns-uva

It is always about the money. People won’ t go along with something that threatens their existence, financially, physically or otherwise and global warming triggers the human instinct for survival.

Politicians are going to say or do anything to get reelected. It is their political instinct for survival in action.

As the tide turns and the truth becomes blatantly obvious the human instinct for survival as a whole dictates that we protect our progeny to propagate the species and insure our survival.

Educating children prepares them for life and helps to ensure our continued existence.

Some day soon the troll’s children will ask, “What did you do about the great global warming scam?” The parent will lie or say that they believed it was true. I can picture in my mind’s eye a child staring through betrayed, tear laced eyes crying, “Why Daddy, why?”

Things could be worse, it could be me instead having to bear the shame and the eternal stain upon my soul!!

Wise words will always be heard above rhetoric, jonnyboy suffers from cognitive dissonance. It is a disease among many of the lefto greenie. They are unable to relate properly the the nature of the universe around them, and their reasoning fails to religion or pseudoscience. Their are of the weak side of humanity, slowing our progression, they dishonor the human spirit. They hate real science, as they cannot understand it.

Physics and its fundamental relationship with nature is the most exciting academic sphere known to man. Unknowns, yet to be known.
Probably, when fully understood, it will allow us to interact with nature in unimaginable ways.

Undoubtedly, climatic science is the hottest topic around, justifiably, as it concerns the atmosphere that, was not only essential to the creation of life, but is essential to its sustainability.

Our perception of the physical universe defines our psychology and, it seems, we either fear or embrace our knowledge of it.
Yet, fear has it consequences. Relative theory borne of bias always remains in the philosophical, and constantly questioned. It is this illogical branch of reasoning that spawns thought into the unknowns, furthering knowledge of the universe and our relationship with it.
Climatic reasoning is flawed, the scientific hypothesis is an appeal to authority, it relies on a censuses biased by our psychology. The strength of its theory relies on disproof.

Reasoning cannot disprove the truth, or otherwise, of our perceptions which are only of the theories known to us.
For example, as a Theory of Relativity the following;

It is the arrangement of electrons in atoms and molecules that radiates in equilibrium to its range of covalent bond. The chemical composition of molecules obtains isothermal properties from conduction with the electrons working the covalent bond. It is this conduction and then convection that dominates our climate and regulates its oscillation. This theory disproves Co2 forcing on temperature other than the irradiative performance of the pairing of its electrons. No energy is added atmospherically by radiation. It is conduction from the work of the covalent bond and the convention of molecules within a gravitation field that denotes the heat of a planetary body (that is surrounded by vacuum).

The Potential Gravitational Energy of a planetary body indicates its temperature due to stratified isothermal laws. It is the velocity of rotation to mass that indicates the Potential Gravitational Energy.

This theory of relativity complies with all known laws of physics.

See, I invite you to disprove me. The more general in its application the longer it will take you. It has taken decades to know that the paradigm of climatic reasoning, as the consensus stands, deserves scepticism.

btw it hasn’t gone away, despite what anyone has heard to the contrary:

17 Jan: torrentfreak: SOPA Is Baaaack!
That didn’t take long.
A few days ago the news broke that the pending Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) was put on hold until consensus was reached…
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith just announced that the SOPA markup is expected to continue next month.
“To enact legislation that protects consumers, businesses and jobs from foreign thieves who steal America’s intellectual property, we will continue to bring together industry representatives and Members to find ways to combat online piracy,” Chairman Smith said.
“Due to the Republican and Democratic retreats taking place over the next two weeks, markup of the Stop Online Piracy Act is expected to resume in February…
“I am committed to continuing to work with my colleagues in the House and Senate to send a bipartisan bill to the White House that saves American jobs and protects intellectual property.”http://torrentfreak.com/sopa-is-baaack-120117/

Many are becoming aware how much I respect the peer review system on journals submitted scientists globally. I think it rather insulting that many think and are utterly convinced that this method does not ensure good science pervades the literature. Selective data, incorrect calculation and misleading partial evidence has no part in the scientific endeavour.

One scientist looked upon as a hero to anti-warmists is Dr. Richard S. Lindzen.

Surely a litmus test on good science must be established within the review process whether this is politically palatable or not.

My conclusion:

Toying with High School children with alternative implied science presented as mainstream and not filtering quackery is unacceptable.

Read on…………

All of the reviews are thoughtful assessments of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript in
question by leading experts, so they provide valuable hints for (possibly) improving the paper…I
sympathize with Rev. 4′s comments who concludes that the new paper simply has to explain why the
opposite conclusions from the same data set by Trenberth et al. are flawed. If that could be achieved
through a major review of the current version (hopefully accounting also for other important referee
remarks) then the article would provide a crucial contribution to a most relevant scientific debate.

In light of these additional critiques, the Board concurs that the current paper must be declined for
publication. I am sorry we cannot be more encouraging at this time and hope the additional reviews
will help in revising the work.

For the full letter regarding the rejection of his paper as being unacceptable goto:

—————————–
Who’s an “anti-warmist”? We are independent scientists here. I’m not against people who argue the world is warming, but I am against poseurs who pretend that they are scientists, but can’t reason, don’t have empirical evidence, and who hide their methods or data.– Jo

The peer-review process is not the most robust and pristine process. I know of several examples, my own work included, where the results, based on robust method and data supported conclusions at considerable variance with the current view. Rejection of the resultant manuscript was hard to accept and impossible to contest. Sometimes it was merely an editorial decision, with no recourse or ability to respond or refute remarks made by the referees. On occasions, refereed manuscripts appear to be satisfactory in the eyes of the reviewers, but the editorial committee decide they simply do not wish to publish the manuscript.

There are many reasons why manuscripts are rejected, and several of these have nothing whatsoever to do with science or the peer review process. It is a truly catastrophic tragedy for science, climate science in particular, that the travesty of data called the hockey-stick graph represents one of the largest pieces of peer reviewed skullduggery or laziness in existence, coupled with an inevitable journal arrogance.

For my part, I trawled my way through various journals until I found one willing to publish data and conclusions substantially at variance with the perceived wisdom. Having achieved that, ‘got it out there’ so to speak, the internet does the rest, thus making the ultimate peer reviewed resting place of a piece of work less important and incidentally, still open to critical mauling.

I assure you as a scientist, peer review is not all it may be cracked up to be. It is at times shonky and open to bias, but it is all we’ve got, and with warts ‘n all, it is still populated in the main by well meaning, self-sacrificing, diligent, unpaid folk that exercise their integrity, intelligence and experience to the best of their frail, human ability.

You should read carefully how the peer review process was applied to this scientist. To be fair – he was ALLOWED to choose two of his professional peers. This paper was rejected as showing no new evidence or sound reasoning from the selective data.

As we grow older as scientists of course we can become grievous in the rejections. This is a reasonable human fragility. Mistakes have been subsequently corrected and further far more evidential data is forth coming through this peer review – imperfect as it is.

All scientific endeavour make mistakes but I strongly suggest this science is not an environmental aberrant movement nor is it some Marxist left wing plot.

Whilst I concur you are not strictly an anti-warmist, you are very negative on the warming extent caused by free CO2 in the atmosphere. You are a mildest and are on extreme of the lowest extent of estimated warming estimates by the end of this century. You would be in broad terms an anti-warmist when talking this into account. However your stand on the laws of thermodynamics and that of radiative forcing causing a warming (factored input by CO2) is respected as it respects the science.

However at the end of the day, you can see clearly how the review process works.

In the case of an isobaric process, where pressure is constant and independent of temperature such as the one operating at the Earth surface, Ross James, You have presumed Jo Nova’s position, but have no fear, I can assure you Co2, except for minute change in pressure, benfits life and has no negative effects. I LOVE SCIENCE.

It is the physical force of atmospheric pressure that can only fully explain the observed near-surface thermal enhancement.

So, if our atmosphere was upended, the thermal enhancement would radiate in all directions at its near surface with space, the same as it would as if it was the normal way around.

And, the kinetic energy of gas, not its chemical composition is what explains its thermal enhancement capacity.

I can only surmise, there is no thermal enhancement back into the system without a increase in kinetic energy. The isobaric atmosphere resists by expansion any increase in pressure, thereby, maintaining the thermal enhancement capacity within it, near the Earths surface.

Anybody got a tester for the PV of C02 in a stratified atmosphere, or for that matter, know it already?

Ross James, You have presumed Jo Nova’s position, but have no fear, I can assure you Co2, except for minute change in pressure, benfits life and has no negative effects. I LOVE SCIENCE.

In the case of an isobaric process, where pressure is constant and independent of temperature such as the one operating at the Earth surface,
It is the physical force of atmospheric pressure that can only fully explain the observed near-surface thermal enhancement.

So, if our atmosphere was upended, the thermal enhancement would radiate in all directions at its near surface with space, the same as it would as if it was the normal way around.

And, the kinetic energy of gas, not its chemical composition is what explains its thermal enhancement capacity.

I can only surmise, there is no thermal enhancement back into the system without a increase in kinetic energy. The isobaric atmosphere resists by expansion any increase in pressure, thereby, maintaining the thermal enhancement capacity within it, near the Earths surface.

Anybody got a tester for the PV of C02 in a stratified atmosphere, or for that matter, know it already?

While not wishing to pann Roy it must be stated that he is a qualified meteorologist with all that that entails.

I would suspect that his University studies did not involve and detailed thermodynamics nor any work on mass, heat and momentum transfer and this seems to have been evident in his recent post on Down-welling Radiation in his backyard.
Roy’s backyard observations were fantastic and it would have been interesting to have someone with the necessary background place an interpretation on them besides his own.

Climate science is really not in the scope of climatologists whose studies are more environmental science with a touch of material from the University of Skeptical Science.

I am utterly stumped as to why one would attribute only surface warming to this theory.

Of course you are stumped because you can’t find the warming! Where is it? Please, no double digit IQ cut and paste malarkey! Try to make an intelligent argument that is presented LOGICALLY and buttressed by empirical evidence. Come on Ross, you can do it!

Most climate scientists grab a concept or equation from a text book and just Go for it with no real understanding of what they are doing.

The worst aspect of their “science” is that they do not seek input or comment from others who have expertise in the necessary areas of Geology, Thermodynamics and physics, orbital mechanics just to list a few.

There is much truth in the eminent physicist Max Planck’s observation, “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up,” sometimes paraphrased as, “science advances one funeral at a time.”

What is the NEW scientific truth you have in mind? Surely not AGW as it began rearing its head at the end of the nineteenth century. In fact about one hundred and fifteen years ago.

In case you are a little rusty on the history of this science here’s a reminder:

Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. He proposed a relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature. He found that the average surface temperature of the earth is about 15 C because of the infrared absorption capacity of water vapor and carbon dioxide. This is called the natural greenhouse effect. Arrhenius suggested a doubling of the CO2 concentration would lead to a 5 C temperature rise. He and Thomas Chamberlin calculated that human activities could warm the earth by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

That’s one possible scenario and one which Arrhenius suggested would be good for such things as improved agricultural outcomes.

Below is another based on other aspects of science and which has many followers who are scientists even today:

After the discoveries of Arrhenius and Chamberlin the topic was forgotten for a very long time. At that time it was thought than human influences were insignificant compared to natural forces, such as solar activity and ocean circulation. It was also believed that the oceans were such great carbon sinks that they would automatically cancel out our pollution. Water vapor was seen as a much more influential greenhouse gas.

If you have some familiarity with the history you will know that the idea of significant global warming due to human CO2 emissions was overwhelmingly rejected, every time it reared its head, by the scientific community until quite recently.

Then there was an interesting little interlude, which some might say shows how fickle climate science is and has been:

In the late 1950′s and early 1960′s Charles Keeling used the most modern technologies available to produce concentration curves for atmospheric CO2 in Antarctica and Mauna Loa. These curves have become one of the major icons of global warming. The curves showed a downward trend of global annual temperature from the 1940′s to the 1970′s. At the same time ocean sediment research showed that there had been no less than 32 cold-warm cycles in the last 2,5 million years, rather than only 4. Therefore, fear began to develop that a new ice age might be near. The media and many scientists ignored scientific data of the 1950′s and 1960′s in favor of global cooling.

So there you go. Ah but there is more:

In the 1980′s, finally, the global annual mean temperature curve started to rise. People began to question the theory of an upcoming new ice age. In the late 1980′s the curve began to increase so steeply that the global warming theory began to win terrain fast. Environmental NGO’s (Non-Governmental Organizations) started to advocate global environmental protection to prevent further global warming. The press also gained an interest in global warming. It soon became a hot news topic that was repeated on a global scale. Pictures of smoke stacks were put next to pictures of melting ice caps and flood events. A complete media circus evolved that convinced many people we are on the edge of a significant climate change that has many negative impacts on our world today. Stephen Schneider had first predicted global warming in 1976. This made him one of the world’s leading global warming experts.

The thing to notice is that the alarmist climate scientists are so uncertain of the theory that when the global temperature seems to be falling they jump on the Ice Age is coming bandwagon and when it rises they jump ship and climb on board the “we’ll all be frizzled” bandwagon.

That bandwagon under the auspices of the IPCC has become a gravy train so that probably is why those climate scientists prone to alarmism have not yet jumped off the catastrophic AGW bandwagon despite a decade in which there has been no significant increase in global temperature.

Perhaps the funerals you had in mind were of those climate scientists who perhaps are genetically predisposed to alarmism and adapt their scientific hypothesis according to the trends in global temperature, whether up or down. This fickleness is presently going to cost Australians a lot in terms of the shackling of Australian industry by the imposition of “clean energy” initiatives including the infamous carbon tax.

You have been somewhat tardy and careless in accounting for the development of the science of AGW. You would do better in reading the following book title on its history.

“Chamberlin history of climate” – sub searches for the book within Google book context search.

Historical Perspectives on Climate Change By James Rodger Fleming

This intriguing volume provides a thorough examination of the historical roots of global climate change as a field of inquiry, from the Enlightenment to the late twentieth century. Based on primary and archival sources, the book is filled with interesting perspectives on what people have understood, experienced, and feared about the climate and its changes in the past. Chapters explore climate and culture in Enlightenment thought; climate debates in early America; the development of international networks of observation; the scientific transformation of climate discourse; and early contributions to understanding terrestrial temperature changes, infrared radiation, and the carbon dioxide theory of climate. But perhaps most important, this book shows what a study of the past has to offer the interdisciplinary investigation of current environmental problems.

the phenomenon that you are describing by the name of Emeritus Syndrome, whereby retired (or semi-retired) scientists suddenly get in their bonnet that they can make one last great contribution to society by going rogue against the prevailing wind.

(Have you considered the possibility.That they did that because they were now beyond reach of the powers that be?) CTS

Oh, and the phenomenon that you are describing with Giaever and Lewis and so forth sometimes goes by the name of Emeritus Syndrome, whereby retired (or semi-retired) scientists suddenly get in their bonnet that they can make one last great contribution to society by going rogue against the prevailing wind.

Ross I was responding to your implicit claim that the science of AGW was “new” and it needed time to be accepted.

My response was to indicate that the one piece of basic science that undergirds AGW is in fact over a century old and though much water has gone under the bridge since then our understanding of how the GH effect affects Earth’s climate has not really advanced much since then.

The basic historical outline I gave can be confirmed from various sources so I have no need to check out a correct history if that is what you are saying.

The commentary on that history and my reference to the UN’s political interference is mine but one that in the context of the biased way in which the IPCC reports have been assembled seems to me and many others including non alarmist climatologists a reasonable assessment of what motivates many of the alarmist climatologists.

Roy Spencer is as highly credentialed as any climate scientist. Here’s his appraisal of the IPCC and its faithful scientists:

November 23rd, 2011

Ever since the first Climategate e-mail release, the public has become increasingly aware that scientists are not unbiased. Of course, most scientists with a long enough history in their fields already knew this (I discussed the issue at length in my first book Climate Confusion), but it took the first round of Climategate e-mails to demonstrate it to the world.

The latest release (Climategate 2.0) not only reveals bias, but also some private doubts among the core scientist faithful about the scientific basis for the IPCC’s policy goals. Yet, the IPCC’s “cause” (Michael Mann’s term) appears to trump all else.

So, when the science doesn’t support The Cause, the faithful turn toward discussions of how to craft a story which minimizes doubt about the IPCC’s findings. After considerable reflection, I’m going to avoid using the term ‘conspiracy’ to describe this activity, and discuss it in terms of scientific bias……..”

Where does Arrhenius fit into all this? Perhaps his understanding of our climate system was too simplistic and he thus overstates the role of increased atmospheric CO2.

That is he did not understand the chaotic and complex (interactive) nature of the Earth’s climate system and his followers today it seems suffer from the same misunderstanding.

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up.”

Second, Ross James is anything but a skeptic (strange that I’m defending him here). James’ point was that he thinks that the skeptics are dying off (of old age) and will soon therefore lose the argument. Ross has a lot of misconceptions and I think this is one — the young scientists are mostly taking the skeptic’s side (since we have the convincing evidence) — the exceptions are those who are trying to maintain their government-funded livelyhood.

Third, your attempt to turn this into a claim that skeptics are making death threats:

…but wow, is that the way the Skeptics think they are going to win. Chilling.

Given the context of Ross James’ post #24 and Llew Jones’ post #24.2, this is about the most irrational ‘conclusion’ that I’ve seen here, and that’s saying a lot.

I have a prediction.
In 20 years time it will be the common view that “climate change” was largely a red herring, a dark moment in history in which science, the media and the education systems sold out to fringe politics. Students will study how propoganda and groupthink can be used to promote even the most patently ridiculous doomsday theory.

Some questions they will ask are:

“How did everyone get convinced that a couple of degrees warming would result in mass deaths when history shows that humans thrive in warmer climates?”
“Why did people think that an increase in CO2 could cause tornados, cyclones, floods and droughts when there was no evidence or mechanism to cause this”?
“How did people believe this was objective science when so much ideology, politics and economic interests drove the agenda?”
“Why did people not learn from similar scams in history?”

“In 20 years time”??? I hope it’s a lot sooner than that. But the Greens will still be there a lot longer than that, so when those questions are asked folx will have a remnant deluded minority to point to. (at?)

Sonny, that is a plausible scenario. Not terribly likely, but plausible. Here is another.

In 20 years time, as commercial shipping regularly travels through the arctic during summer, people will look back and say, “Why didn’t we act on this earlier? How could we have been so stupid not to recognise just how big a problem this was going to be?”.

as commercial shipping regularly travels through the arctic during summer, people will look back and say, “Why didn’t we act on this earlier? How could we have been so stupid not to recognise just how big a problem this was going to be?”.

Arctic ice has rebounded and the earlier thinning was caused by shifting wind currents and the arctic oscillation. The PDO and MDO have shifted and the ice has rebounded nicely! The Antarctic has record ice and it is thickening. The ice is not quite as thick as you, John, but the volume is huge! Perhaps you can leave us all flabbergasted by actually quoting some empirical evidence instead of trotting out the old, discredited and thoroughly debunked CAGW talking points. You have the Internet so start googling!

Let us assume for the sake of the argument that CAGW happens. Your daughter says, “Hey daddy, why did we destroy the world’s economies to shave off 2 or 3 tenths of a degree from the 7 degrees of warming that occurred? Now we are all poor and nobody can afford to travel the arctic passage! Why can’t we eat, daddy, like the few green elites who have everything while the other 99% lives in abject poverty? Why,daddy, why? Is that why mommy left you and we have no friends?”

The precautionary principal is a fool’ errand. If the world dramatically warms or cools we can deal with it and not condemn the world to live in poverty and misery by utilizing risk management.

O/T But a post on Richard North’s EUReferendum site, here has pointed out that, “In Kashmir, five people are reported killed in Arctic conditions, with temperatures recorded as the lowest for 16 years.”

“This, though, pales into insignificance compared with the reports from New Delhi, home of Rajendra Pachauri.”, continues North.

“From there, we are told that North India is reeling under intense cold wave condition that has led to more than 140 deaths across the region. The national capital region of Delhi is under a spell of cold wave with the minimum hovering around 5 degree Celsius on Tuesday morning.”

“Some of these areas have seen their first snowfall for 60 years, yet in no instance do we see the warmists complaining. They are only interested in death by global warming. Death by freezing is of no importance.”

Jo, you cheer us up by pulling out the good news from that piece in the LA Times. But let us not overlook that the main message of the piece is that a battle-hardened pressure group with at least a dozen full-time staff and some 4,500 members has decided to move into campaigning for climate alarmism is schools throughout the United States. The ongoing accumulation of evidence that the climate system is behaving as if the additional CO2 was of little consequence, time may well sort this all out. But how long will it take? Another 30 years? We already have extremely foolish legislation in place in the UK (the Climate Change Act) and you have your foolishness in a Carbon Tax. What more harm will be done to economies, to societies, and to the mental and physical wellbeing of children by this modern ‘madness of crowds’?

Perhaps it will be defeated not by intellectual arguments, not least the deployment of scientific method, but rather more plainly by the recent discoveries of abundant fuel supplies in the form of shale gas and methane hydrates (e.g. see several recent reports in Greenie Watch, http://antigreen.blogspot.com/). The prospect of abundance and progress being enjoyed by those who exploit these wonderful discoveries contrasting with the crippled economies and powercuts of those under the heel of green control could be a salutory one.

“Because I said so” never worked particularly well for my parents once I started asking why I was told certain behavior was “bad” if I did it, but “ok” if they did it (lying about something for example).

“Because (insert authority figure/claimed expert/prestigious institute name here) said so” doesn’t work any better. I still want to know why and a fancy title or long list of credentials is not a free pass to acceptance of anything they say or claim.

But for many people today it is. They are content to let others think for them.

Yikes, nice catch, MV. I never noticed. I’m quite embarrassed that I took an ABC story at face value.

I’m gonna skip the stereotypical response and try to think positively for a change.

This must surely be the sign that the Flamster has seen the error of his ways and wishes to turn over a new leaf, embrace scientific integrity, and be part of a change that may have some hope of actually protecting the environment from real and present adverse human meddling.

Unless he tries to tell us the Murray has never run low before the advent of Catastrophic Anthropocentric Gulping of Water and decides a universal water tax is the way forward. ( *Doh*, I tried to be positive, honest.)

“Former Australian of the Year Dr Tim Flannery calls for multi-billion dollar desalination plant in Murray-Darling Basin.”

The article would have gone to explain Flim-Flammery’s claim that it was never going to rain in the M-D Basin area again, and even if it did, it wouldn’t help because the soil is now so dry there would be no run-off – you know, like in QLD.

So he was calling for a huge desal plant to be built to purify seawater pumped from the coast, to artificially replace the lost waterways. The multi-billion dollar desal plant could be powered by “clean energy” provided by a multi billion dollar expansion of the (failed) experimental geothermal power station at Innamincka, built by Geodynamics with a multi-million dollar grant from the government.

Twelve months ago the article probably wouldn’t have even mentioned that “other scientists” were even involved.

(It most certainly wouldn’t have mentioned that Dr Flim Flammery owns a whole fistful of shares in Geodynamics.)

The fact that his involvement just got a tag at the end represents real progress, I think

Sacrificing our planets science is the averaging for the single calculation.
This changes the planet we live on into a cylinder and assumes that whatever happens on one part of the planet must happen on all places of the planet.
Accuracy is sacrificed. Take 3.14159, the circle. Never to actually meet up but is needed for the different sizes of circles.

This is so obviously propaganda! By only discussing human impacts on the climate they conveniently bypass any meaningful scientific inquiry into the causes of climate change.

The most alarming are the suggested activities… Please see exert below:

A Changing Climate 14

Taking action Taking action Taking action Taking action

Acting on the information

Once the information has been collated and discussed, students might undertake the following activities:

• Contact other schools to collaborate and share their weather data. • Make a time capsule with information on climate and weather, their fears and hopes for a changing climate and their plan of action. Bury the time capsule with instructions for it not to be opened until a date in the future. • Share researched information with others in the community, such as scientists, local council, P&C group, SRC representatives. • Develop an action plan using flowcharts, consequence charts, timelines and visual tools to support understanding of how we might need to adapt to a changing climate;. • Mount a display inviting others’ viewpoints and ideas; • Consider taking action by reducing energy usage, purchasing certain goods or services that have the least impact on the natural environment; • Address the management of outputs that affect climate, for example; energy use, transport choices, purchasing, materials use etc; • Use and develop their grounds and surrounding areas to absorb (sequester) carbon; • Use and develop their grounds and surrounding areas to increase sequestration by planting trees and attracting native wildlife; • Write letters to editors of newspapers expressing views on the threats facing climate in your chosen area.

Reflection on outcomes Encourage students to:

• Check to see if they answered their original investigation questions. • Discuss the main obstacles and opportunities in obtaining information about the risks, predictions and issues affecting climate. • Write an account of the investigation or develop a flowchart identifying various strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the strategies used to be used to protect and manage the risk of climate change. • Reflect on whether their narrative has changed students’ individual attitudes to the issue of climate change and the risk it poses.

Take Action at School and Home Get involved to actively make change at school, at home or in the community. Consider the following activities to conserve energy:

• Conducting an energy audit at the school and investigating technologies that may be of use.

Whoever wrote those specifications from CSIRO probably never had kids of their own.

The kids will get all enthusiastic about the project for about a week and then abandon it. One kid will have the fortitude to stick at it longer and end up doing all the work. The teacher will give the project a pass whatever the standard and breathe a sigh of relief that “that’s” over.

The only comparable thing I can think of when I went to primary school was the “new maths”. A lot of energy was spent teaching us that A = B is the same as B = A.

Rather than saying “…sun tsi only changes a tiny amount…..
“…(in our clueless ignorance) only if CO2 is used as a fudge factor can we continue getting money…”
and “understandable within” is definitely not science
how about some “science” rather than “GIGO models”?

So, the counter theory is that
— a) the sun
— b) with all its unknown variations (ref sunspot cycle huge changes) with mechanisms unknown,
— c) can cause, as explained, in part, by Svensmark, major changes in cloud formation and earth albedo,
— d) plate tectonics with all the volcanic activity,
— e) Milankovitch cycles, and
— f) all the other things we are ignorant ofplay havoc with this cute little life boat/marble we call “earth”.

While we ought not be fouling our nest,
I haven’t seen any research the can adequately predict the sun’s moods (shoot, they can’t even predict a sunspot maximum 4 years out), and we now have a falsification of the
” sun is a bit player” conjecture,
so all bets are off.

On the other hand,
the evangelical grandpa Baby Boomers have gone a bit over board:
being willing to sacrifice their child and grandchildren’s future outside this marble
by keeping everything neat and clean so they have good collateral
to “borrow their way to prosperity” from China.

Currently Julia is spending faster than she can pay off the bond issues she has raised so it wont be long before the borrowings eat up all economic growth we have in Oz and they have to find another way to “stimulate” tax returns and jobs. Carbon tax will dissappear once govt income is threatened – ie there is not enough growth to allow further borrowing.

Scaper: Please go easy on the name calling, “no better than Flannery” is abuse of the worst kind!
As for dropping the carbon tax? Rebrand and rejig, yes. But please point out any tax that has been removed?
The GST was going to replace all those pesky taxes, yet every bill I get is loaded with fees, surcharges, levies, tariffs and my favourite – the (compulsory) contribution!
On top of this tax pudding sits the cherry, the GST!
The carbon tax is just another straw that us poor camels have to carry!

18 Jan: Marketwatch: Climate Change Liability the Focus of Mock U.S. Supreme Court at UH Law Center Jan. 19
SOURCE University of Houston Law Center
The Environment, Energy & Natural Resource Center at the University of Houston Law Center is hosting a mock U.S. Supreme Court argument on climate change tort liability on Jan. 19 in Krost Hall on campus…
Professor Tracy Hester, director of the EENR Center. “This mock oral argument will help highlight how the U.S. Supreme Court might answer some of the fundamental legal questions that will govern these lawsuits.”
The bench includes Baylor University President Ken Starr, retired Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Tom Phillips, and John Cruden, president of the Environmental Law Institute. Richard Faulk, chairman of Gardere Wynne Sewell’s Litigation Section, and David Axelrad, a partner at Horvitz & Levy, will present arguments. An extended analysis and discussion with student input will follow the mock session…
The free event is open to the public and has been approved for 2 hours of Continuing Legal Education credits by the State Bar of Texas…http://www.marketwatch.com/story/climate-change-liability-the-focus-of-mock-us-supreme-court-at-uh-law-center-jan-19-2012-01-18

hear some EU spokespeople on BBC radio a few days ago, throwing the most almighty tantrum about how they will not budge on the aviation tax cos after all they are just doing their bit for the environment and it’s not their fault there isn’t a global agreement. searched the Beeb for hours and have never found that highly embarrassing interview on their website. however…

18 Jan: WSJ: Doug Cameron: EU Open To Dialogue With US On Airline Emissions
The European Union has no plans to suspend the controversial inclusion of the airline industry in the bloc’s carbon-trading market, though leaders told Secretary of State Hilary Clinton they remain open to exempting U.S. carriers if they become subject to other measures that reduce emissions…
The EU’s transport and climate action commissioners responded in a Jan. 16 letter that they were open to addressing U.S. concerns. Suggested avenues included the adoption by the U.S. of its own program to cut emissions, and the creation of a global pact overseen by the United Nations…
The U.S. has said 41 countries have registered objections to the emission trading system as a unilateral action in breach of international law. Lawmakers are pushing bills that would ban U.S. airlines from complying, and China has even hinted the scheme could affect orders for Airbus jets…http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120118-713078.html

Record snow in Japan, record snow in Alaska, heavy snow earlier this month in the Alps, lots of snow in Western Canada and Scandinavia, too. Except for the Continental US, the Northern Hemisphere is getting hammered with snow this winter. I’m wondering if the snow in Alaska will even melt this summer. Anchorage has had over 27 feet so far and winter isn’t even half over.

I awake this morning to the depressing news that high school kids and uni entrants are deserting maths and the “hard” sciences in droves. They can’t see the relevance of the subjects to their everyday lives.

No wonder so many of them flall victim to fad and faith-based “science”.

You have requested quite a few times a response from me directed toward yourself as a personal answer.

I shall respond but with a further link but from respected society: The Royal Society of London for you to carefully consider your position.

We all recognise that Climate change is the subject of intense public and political debate as the Royal Society has already noted on their web site. Your level of interest in the topic is also well noted here. The Royal Society of London has produced a very good and timely guide on the science. As they state: “The guide summarises the current scientific evidence on climate change and its drivers highlighting the areas where the science is well established, where there is still some debate, and where substantial uncertainties remain. The document was prepared by a working group chaired by Professor John Pethica, Vice President of the Royal Society and was approved by the Royal Society Council”